George C. Grimsley v. Palm Beach Credit Adjusters, Inc.
691 F. App'x 576
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Grimsley (pro se) was the debtor on three past-due medical bills totaling $90.66; Cardiology Partners retained Palm Beach Credit Adjusters, Inc. (d/b/a Focus) to collect.
- Focus received the accounts in July 2015, mailed collection notices, and made four phone calls between July 31 and August 10, 2015, leaving voicemail messages each time; Grimsley never answered or communicated with Focus.
- Focus’s manager (Randy Kovalsky) submitted an affidavit stating Focus mailed the required § 1692g notices to the address Grimsley had provided; some mail had been returned to Focus earlier, and Grimsley asserts he never received the notices.
- Grimsley sued in state court under the FDCPA for failure to provide written notice, harassment, and unconscionable collection practices; Focus removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Focus; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Grimsley failed to raise genuine issues of material fact as to any FDCPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide § 1692g written notice | Grimsley says he never received the required written validation notices | Focus produced affidavit showing it mailed the notices to the address provided; FDCPA requires notices be sent, not received | No genuine dispute; summary judgment for Focus — sending (not receipt) satisfied § 1692g(a) |
| Harassment based on Do-Not-Call, call timing, frequency, and failure to mail notices | Grimsley contends calls violated Do-Not-Call rules, were at inconvenient times, were excessive, and followed from lack of authorization | Calls were not telemarketing (DNC inapplicable); all calls were made between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.; only four calls in two weeks; no written revocation to cease communications | No genuine dispute; summary judgment for Focus — no FDCPA harassment shown |
| Unconscionable or unfair collection practices under § 1692f | Grimsley contends Focus’s policies permit abusive or illegal practices (harassment, threats, false info) | Focus’s policies actually prohibit such conduct; no evidence Focus engaged in prohibited practices | No genuine dispute; summary judgment for Focus — no § 1692f violation shown |
| Removal / subject-matter jurisdiction | Grimsley challenged removal as lacking SMJ | Focus removed based on federal-question jurisdiction (FDCPA claims) | Removal proper because case arises under federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- FindWhat Inv’r Grp. v. FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2011) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden of showing absence of genuine dispute)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine issue for trial)
- Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1980) (unsworn allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment; applies to pro se litigants)
- Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cty. Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (§ 1692g(a) requires notice be sent, not necessarily received)